Queries about circumcision

[Reginald the Butler]

I understand where you're coming from. I'll just be something my wife and I discuss in the future.

On a side note, it is rather odd the most of the circumcised posters seem pretty "meh" about the procedure, while, what I assume are the uncircumcised posters, seem to be the ones who are up-in-arms.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I understand where you're coming from. I'll just be something my wife and I discuss in the future.

On a side note, it is rather odd the most of the circumcised posters seem pretty "meh" about the procedure, while, what I assume are the uncircumcised posters, seem to be the ones who are up-in-arms.

Because children have actually died from a purely cosmetic procedure.

A little perspective.

Rub you finger along the back of your hand, and then across your palm.

That's the difference in sensitivity we're talking about.

 

[Yopaz]

You know, I am going to go a little off topic here and go back in time.

A few years ago there was this giant resource project planned. Because there are a lot of kids with Diabetes type 1 (IDDM or Insulin dependent diabetes mellitus) they wanted to research why this occurs and how it can be pretended. This is usually a disease that occurs on children younger than 8 years old and it's a very serious disease. It's unknown what makes it happen so research on the subject is needed. However they weren't allowed to go through with the project because it's unethical. They would be doing research on newborn babies and young kids who can't consent.

Now this is research that could help millions of people every year including the ones included the ones that are researched on. If that isn't ethical then giving a newborn a cosmetic procedure which got no proven perks other than the old myth about hygiene is far from it.

 

[ElPatron]

Rub you finger along the back of your hand, and then across your palm.

That's the difference in sensitivity we're talking about.

I am uncut, my brother has been circumcised. We have discussed this and it seems that there is no difference in sensitivity.

I seem to remember something about a research on men who had sex when they were uncut and then cut and found no difference. Can't bring sauce, unfortunately.

If that isn't ethical then giving a newborn a cosmetic procedure which got no proven perks other than the old myth about hygiene is far from it.

Except when it's not purely cosmetic and is thought as a way to prevent the spreading of HIV.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

But other websites and studies I've looked at have said that there's no change, and/or that it can actually expose/enhance certain areas of the penis, giving the same or more sexual pleasure, and some women like it. So basically, what I'm asking here is to have some kind of definitive, unbiased verdict on the whole thing, because I don't need yet another thing to stress about (as sad as that may sound) and I'd rather it not be a problem in the future.

The studies that found no change used the circumcised penis as there model for comparison, and thus never tested the sensitivity of the foreskin itself or factored it into there equations. In addition to the sensation its movements produce, the foreskin contains tens of thousands of nerves, making it one of, if not the, most sensitive parts of the penis. You cannot possibly remove that many nerve ending and not lose sensitivity. It is not possible.

As for genital mutilation, it is a permanent surgical alteration to human genitals committed against infants who cannot possibly give their consent (their parents consent does not and should not count, the same way parents can't consent for a child to have sex and make it not rape). Circumcision is a more invasive procedure than many of the activities banned as genital mutilation when done to girls (you have no doubt seen the extreme cases which are more equivalent to castration. These are not the norm and the most common varieties of FGM remove fewer nerve endings and less tissue than circumcision). Any cut made to the genitals of an infant girl is a crime. Why shouldn't infant boys receive the same protection?

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

I must say, I enjoy not having shmegma... or however it's spelled.

But in all reality, I don't think circumcision does anything, and I'd rather have my foreskin taken away while I was young and couldn't remember the feeling than fucking now.

Seriously- This is a trivial argument.

That logic is pretty flawed. You are happy having part of your body cut off because you don't want to take a few seconds in the shower to wash yourself?

I don't mind it at all. It's a useless body part, much like an appendix. (Though I've never heard of foreskin exploading...)

It doesn't make me any less human to have a bit of skin cut off, and if thoust thinks it does, well you can honestly go fuck yourself.

And on another topic of how useless this argument is- The makes sex less pleasurable/ more is completely based on oppenion.
The only problem I see with it is if a child somehow dies from the procudure, and well, life sucks anyway.

 

[Rendahli]

OK, so I know that this can be a somewhat private issue (not just for me, but for many people), but I want some discussion and insight into it anyway.

I'll start off by giving some background information that may or may not be particularly relevant to the rest of my story. My parents are Muslim, and I only became a fully-fledged Atheist about four or, at the latest, five years ago. But when I was about four, I was circumcised. I think I recall my mum telling me that it wasn't necessarily to do with "our" religion, but that I'd had some kind of infection and the best thing to do was to circumcise me so it wouldn't be an obstruction anymore. However, I'm not entirely sure how true that is, and she could've just been shovelling me lies to keep me quiet, on the basis that I wouldn't remember it when I grew up.

Now, some of my friends and websites that I've visited, detailing various medical studies, have said that circumcision can reduce the sensitivity of a man's penis and, therefore, reduce sexual pleasure, with some (potentially biased) opinions dubbing it "genital mutilation" (which shocked me). Obviously, this is a concern for someone like me, a 16-year-old heterosexual boy who's looking to have sex with a potential girlfriend some time in the future, and I'd hate for one or both of us to be short-changed unfairly like that.

But other websites and studies I've looked at have said that there's no change, and/or that it can actually expose/enhance certain areas of the penis, giving the same or more sexual pleasure, and some women like it. So basically, what I'm asking here is to have some kind of definitive, unbiased verdict on the whole thing, because I don't need yet another thing to stress about (as sad as that may sound) and I'd rather it not be a problem in the future.

A few months ago I had to have a circumcision due to medical reasons. I honestly can't feel that much of a difference during sex or other related activities, if anything I would say it feels better (especially oral...). My girlfriend also says that she prefers it circumcised.

To everyone else going on about how much it hurts etc... it doesn't, the only times when it hurt were when the stitches would get caught on jeans or something. I took crappy cheap ASDA's own aspirin for two days after the operation but to be honest I don't think I even needed to do that.

Basically you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Sectan]

Why did you have to start this thread OP? They always end terribly.

Shit.

This won't end well.

Anyone who wishes to survive may join me in my bunker. I have all the hookers and Blackjack you could ever want.

I don't know who you are. If you want money I don't have any, but if you allow me into your bunker that will be the end of it. If you don't I will look for you. I will find you. And then I'll pound on the door until you let me in.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Because children have actually died from a purely cosmetic procedure.

A little perspective.

In every single documented case I've found, it's *ALWAYS* because the procedure wasn't performed properly (at least when talking specifically about male circumcision). Improper training, cutting, utilities, etc. I have *yet* to find a documented case where everything was done by the book and a child died anyway. (And I would be very interested in reading otherwise)

We don't stop procedures based on the fact that things fuck up when you don't do them correctly. The reasoning behind that astounds me.

 

[anthony87]

Warning, this is in detail and might gross out some people. Anyhow, I'm not circumcised, but as a I grew my foreskin didn't as much, so now it only covers half of my head, when flaccid. When erect, I look circumcised, so girls usually can't tell. The front part of my head is dried up and less sensitive, at first, when I was growing, it was uncomfortable to even wear clothes, but it hardened up and got less sensitive over time. Pretty crappy, so I imagine it's like that for the whole head of circumcised people. Pretty much, I'm happy I have most of my foreskin still.

See I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. My foreskin doesn't go back over my head. Like....at all so I've been wondering to myself if I could give circumcision a looksee.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Basically all medical benefits can be achieved with washing. The statistic thrown around that it reduces cancer is true. But its only true because you cant get cancer on a bit of skin thats removed. To further that logic you would remove all excess skin(earlobes, most of the breast area and nipple, webs of fingers ect) to reduce cancer rates. Which is rediculous. If the arguements are so compelling for it let us get it when we are older anyway. Just dont perform cosmetic surgery on children. Its unneccessary and cant be reversed:

Two scenarios:

Have it and dont want it? - Fucked

Dont have it and want it - Always available.

Which one should be the default for CHILDREN?

Its fairly straight forward. Sure it doesnt matter THAT much. But choice is everything. Isnt it nice to let children decide if they want to -

A: clean it
B: Cut it off

With all of their body parts unneccessary or not?

I think its a sign of bad parenting to want to permenantly alter your childs appearance before they can decide for themselves. Its the same to me as tattooing my baby because not doing so "looks weird" or "its just what we do to babies". Sure its not a big deal REALLY. But its fucking weird and unneccessary and i wish people would stop unless its medically needed.

 

[Slayer_2]

See I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. My foreskin doesn't go back over my head. Like....at all so I've been wondering to myself if I could give circumcision a looksee.

Even when you're erect?! Sounds painful. Maybe a case where circumcision could be a good idea. Just make sure you have soft underpants for afterwards, first few weeks will be awkward.

 

[Rendahli]

Snip.

We don't treat infections with circumcisions anymore. That is medievil/Civil War Medical logic. That's been outdated for centuries.

We treat infections with antibiotics, which is much cheaper, and less invasive. I know this from personal experience.

Now onto pleasure. There are very few scientific studies on circumcision, and most of the studies supporting circumcision try to bullshit their way into the medical community by using samples as low as 50, and restricting themselves to one tribe in Africa.

These studies have been thrown out.
You can have this link though:

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

Personally, I say you were lied to.

I suggest looking up a condition known as Balanitis xerotica obliterans which is still treated mainly by circumcision.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

I must say, I enjoy not having shmegma... or however it's spelled.

But in all reality, I don't think circumcision does anything, and I'd rather have my foreskin taken away while I was young and couldn't remember the feeling than fucking now.

Seriously- This is a trivial argument.

That logic is pretty flawed. You are happy having part of your body cut off because you don't want to take a few seconds in the shower to wash yourself?

I don't mind it at all. It's a useless body part, much like an appendix. (Though I've never heard of foreskin exploading...)

It doesn't make me any less human to have a bit of skin cut off, and if thoust thinks it does, well you can honestly go fuck yourself.

And on another topic of how useless this argument is- The makes sex less pleasurable/ more is completely based on oppenion.
The only problem I see with it is if a child somehow dies from the procudure, and well, life sucks anyway.

I think that's pretty horrible, you are ok with risking the life of a child for the reasons of "just because" and "it saves me time washing".

Yup!
Because guess what, the amount of deaths compaired to circumscisions is very low. If the parent is educated enough about the procedure, and willing to take the risk, why not?

Listen: No one is benifiting from arguments like this. They are pointless wastes of time. It should be left to the parent- and the parent alone for something like this, until the kid becomes humanly councious.
You act as if parents shouldn't make any decisions for their children. What if a parent allows their child to ride the school bus, and it magically exploads and kills the child?

Now, I've got a terrible headache and using my brain (If you'd call it that) is only making it worse. You are entilted to your oppenion, and hell, if you feel so strongly about this, write a letter to your local representitive, tell them your concerns. Honestly, I'd leave this decision up to my spouse, because I really couldn't care less.

 

[hardlymotivated]

Speaking as somebody who was circumcised as an adult (10 weeks ago as of tomorrow, in fact, and for a medical purpose), the only real difference is that now I have to use some lube when I'm spanking one out.

As far as sensitivity goes, I haven't noticed too much of a difference, although any contact with my glans for about 4 weeks post-op felt like it had been poked with a cattle prod. Very, very sensitive. I was informed by my urologist that the change in sensitivity after an adult operation varies from person to person, from penis to penis.

See I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. My foreskin doesn't go back over my head. Like....at all so I've been wondering to myself if I could give circumcision a looksee.

Hey, mate, mine didn't retract at all either, so I know full well what that's like. If you want to talk about that, or circumcision, or anything else, feel free to send me a PM. You're never the only one!

 

[anthony87]

See I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. My foreskin doesn't go back over my head. Like....at all so I've been wondering to myself if I could give circumcision a looksee.

Even when you're erect?! Sounds painful. Maybe a case where circumcision could be a good idea. Just make sure you have soft underpants for afterwards, first few weeks will be awkward.

Nah it's not painful at all. Which is why I'm unsure about circumcision in the first place. I'm considering going to see a urologist once college is done for the summer to get a professional opinion but I'd really rather not have to get the chop.

I've not got anything against circumcision, I just dread the thoughts of those first few weeks you mentioned.

 

[Rendahli]

Snip.

We don't treat infections with circumcisions anymore. That is medievil/Civil War Medical logic. That's been outdated for centuries.

We treat infections with antibiotics, which is much cheaper, and less invasive. I know this from personal experience.

Now onto pleasure. There are very few scientific studies on circumcision, and most of the studies supporting circumcision try to bullshit their way into the medical community by using samples as low as 50, and restricting themselves to one tribe in Africa.

These studies have been thrown out.
You can have this link though:

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

Personally, I say you were lied to.

I suggest looking up a condition known as Balanitis xerotica obliterans which is still treated mainly by circumcision.

That infection doesn't even have a full percent chance of happening. it has a .005% chance of happening. Its a non-issue.

If it's such a non issue how come I and from the sounds of it two other people on this very thread have suffered from it?

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Why do a cosmetic surgery with no benefits (other than saving a minute in the shower) and put a child at risk of death?

Why perform any seemingly unnecessary medical process on a child when the risks and rewards have to be considered? Intentionally putting your kids in rooms with kids who have chicken pox so they catch it while they're young come with certain risks, but we still bloody do it! Why let an underage person, who legally can't make those kinds of decisions get an ear piercing with the consent of the parent? Suddenly that's OK?

Look, the actually trained, educated, medical professionals will sit down with parents and discuss the risks and rewards of circumcision. I have but the entire official stance of the American Medical Associations opinion on circumcision to work with, and they leave it up to the parents; seems good enough for me.

You may say it is due to malpractice but the fact remains that pointless deaths do take place. If they weren't put through it (likely without consent) those children would still be alive today.

It's really the argument itself that I find utterly ridiculous; you can't suggest ending a process when your argument rests on the notion that it fails because people do it wrong. Seriously, think about the legitimacy of that argument for a minute or two.

 

[Spy_Guy]

I think circumcision that is not medically mandated (as stated by a certified doctor) should be illegal to perform / have performed on children under 18.
In the case of Sweden, I think laws should be imposed that would ban the practice of circumcision on people under 18 years of age.
Laws that could get parents prosecuted in case a child under 18 is discovered with circumcised genitalia that was not medically mandated should also be instated in order to get at the practice of "circumcision tourism".

I believe that the children should be able to choose for themselves which religious faith they wish to belong to and that this must occur at an age where the child is more likely to have an informed opinion.
Having a permanent change to your body in the name of religion can't be justified in any way, shape or form, unless you are in a position where you can reliably grant your consent to it.

For a personal story... I have been baptized when I was young. As an atheist, I find that utterly appalling and I'm constantly a bit upset with my parents for going through with it.
Now, imagine that, instead of having water splashed on my head, someone cut off a piece of me, meaning that I have a visual reminder of it every time I needed to pee...
...I don't think I'd have the happy relation to my parents I have today.

To say the least.

 

[JimB]

I thought I made it pretty clear, it would apply to all procedures.

If they consent, do it.

If they do not, don't do it.

If they can't consent but need the surgery, do it.

If they can't consent but don't need the surgery, don't do it.

So you don't think that issues of competence to determine one's participation in medical procedures should be an issue? It's just whatever the patient says yes to, unless he's incapable of responding, in which case the doctor decides?

On a side note, it is rather odd the most of the circumcised posters seem pretty "meh" about the procedure, while, what I assume are the uncircumcised posters, seem to be the ones who are up-in-arms.

That is because they know we are coming for them in the night to circumcise them against their wills with rusty tomahawks.

...Curses! I've let the secret slip! Abort, circumcision ninjas, abort!

Though I've never heard of foreskin exploding...

I have.